This is typically what companies spending 57m on ads do. Its less expensive per click/impression as fb/Google don't take a cut. More expensive to manage.
Believe it or not, people used to physically borrow movies from shops and return them 2 days later!!! That doesn't mean that I can still walk to my newsagents and borrow a copy of Pulp Fiction on VHS.
Things change, and Facebook and Google are now the big players in online advertising, accounting for a large majority of the ad market. Other platforms exist, of course, but by cutting out Google Ads and Facebook you're going to be targetting a very different user base and are cutting out a significant share of the market.
Online Facebook + Google take something like 50% of all ad revenue. Since the product being advertised is a website, offline advertising is probably a lot less effective than online.
It did, and it still does. The biggest difference is that now, FB and Google and a few others have a scope that is an order of magnitude larger than all other advertisers combined. They've gained almost total market control over advertising, hence the word monopoly.
and then there was a massive revolution in the way that people consumed content, and now FB and Google account for the vast majority of advertising consumption (not spending: consumption)
To be fair, ads on Facebook aren't generally appearing in response to searches. But there are plenty of high value lower traffic options, such as specialized blogs and newsletters that have audiences fitting your target market - you have to work to find and work with them but at a certain scale it makes sense (at "I have $57m to spend on ads" scale, potentially not).
